Environmental law is what we do. TM

1191 Second Avenue

Suite 2200

Seattle, WA 98101www.martenlaw.com

ELECTRONIC WASTE RECYCLING IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

Michael LufkinMarten Law Group PLLC

Why Are European Efforts at EWR

Relevant to Washington State EU Legislation relies on similar take-back and producer responsibility principles as new Washington law.

EU experience in establishing collective take back systems could assist in development of “standard plan” in Washington.

Opportunity to learn from EU member states’ implementation efforts.

Opportunity to identify areas where harmonization is possible.

European Union Legislation on Electronic Waste

EC Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) adopted in January 2003.

EC Directive on the Restriction of Certain Hazardous Substances of Electrical and Electronic Equipment (RoHS) adopted in January 2003.

EU does not impose requirements on companies or consumers but rather require member states to implement directives through national legislation.

Key Characteristics of the WEEE Directive Objective is to reduce WEEE disposal to

landfills Provides for free producer take back scheme

for consumers of electronic products Aims to improve product design in order to

prevent WEEE and improve recyclability Achieve specified targets for recovery of

different classes of WEEE Provide for establishment of collection facilities

and systems of WEEE from private households Provide for establishment of financing system

for recovery and treatment of WEEE

Categories of Products Covered By WEEE Directive

Large household appliances Small household appliances IT and Telecommunications equipment (e.g.

computers and cell phones) Consumer equipment (e.g. radios, TVs) Lighting equipment Electrical and electronic tools Toys (e.g. video games) Medical devices Monitoring & control instruments (e.g. smoke

detectors) Automatic dispensers (e.g. drink machines)

Targets for Reuse/Recycling

Directive establishes targets for recovery and recycling of products from each category of covered products.

Rates must be met by December 31, 2006. (Imposed on member states)

IT and Telecommunications 75% Recovery rate 50% Recycling rate

Producer Responsibility

WEEE Directive based on principal that producers finance take-back of own products at end-of-life.

Two options: Individual take-back plans

Producers set up individual take back plan for products in each country.

Collective take-back plans Organization takes on the legal obligation for

producer or group of producers.

Collective Take-Back Plans

Typically not-for-profit organizations established by groups of companies or trade associations.

Organize and coordinate the collection and recycling responsibilities of members throughout a country.

Take care of the practical implementation of the take back obligation.

Costs of membership typically based on market share.

Collective Take-Back Systems

Advantages: Economies of scale often make collective take back

systems more cost effective. Producers and importers often lack the expertise

necessary to run waste collection systems. Avoids the need to set up 25 (the current number of EU

member states) separate individual take back plans Disadvantages:

Removes incentive for individual producers to alter product design to make it more eco-friendly or recyclable. (no recovery of benefits under collective system.)

Most national schemes discourage individual plans and encourage producers to join national collective scheme.

Directive Requires Separate Collection of WEEE

Directive requires that member states have producer financed separate collection systems in place by August 2005.

Must allow consumers the ability to return WEEE free of charge.

Directive does not mandate how and where collection systems are set up.

Target rate of 4 kg per person/per year by December 2008.

Treatment

Must apply best available treatment technology for recovered products.

Directive identifies specific types of treatment technologies/methodologies to be used.

Treatment can be done outside of EU but exporter must prove that EU equivalent treatment took place to receive credit towards target.

Washington could utilize similar approach to address concern about exports.

Financing of Take-Back Obligation Producers responsible. Producers are defined

as the brand name on the product or the importer of the product.

For products placed on market after August 2005, each producer is responsible for providing a financial guarantee for management of waste. (e.g. recycling insurance, bank guarantee, bond). May not impose fees

For products placed in market before August 2005 (historical waste), financing is to be shared by all producers in proportion to market share. May impose fees.

Labeling and Product Information

All new products placed on market after August 2005 must bear label identifying producer.

Producers must also provide consumers information on:

Location of collection points Requirement to dispose of waste separately Health and environmental impacts of e-waste.

Implementation: General Issues

Delay in adopting national legislation Deadline to implement WEEE Directive was

August 2005. Most countries missed the deadline,

including Germany, France, and the UK. Countries that did make deadline

typically had established WEEE recycling culture in place

Implementation: General Issues

Free Riders and orphans: Currently measure about 10-20% of product

in market Create equity problems for complying

producers who must pick up cost of recycling orphan product.

Lack of enforcement by member states seen as contributing to free rider problem. Many countries have no enforcement program.

Implementation: General Issues

National Scheme Divergence Different national laws implementing directive have caused

complexity for industry. Example: National collective system v. competitive

clearinghouse system National Collective System:

Responsible for collection, recycling and financing across country Single market player (monopoly) Typically utilized by smaller countries (Belgium, Netherlands), and those

that had existing WEEE systems Clearinghouse system

Government creates framework that encourages multiple parties Promotes competition Typically utilized by larger countries with no history of WEEE

National Collective System v. Competitive Clearinghouse

Competitive Clearinghouse: Have been slower to develop and implement. Can cause confusion for consumer with multiple

collection providers. More cost effective. HP study found recycling costs

lower in countries with competitive recycling providers.

National Collective: Easier to implement Better economy of scale for smaller countries Provides clarity for consumers

Attorney: Michael Lufkin

Address: 1191 Second Avenue, Suite 2200

Seattle, WA 98101

Main: (206) 292-2600

Direct: (206) 292-2619

Facsimile: (206) 292-2601

E-mail: MLufkin@martenlaw.com

Web: www.martenlaw.com

MLG News: www.martenlaw.com/news